I'm curious as to the experience of those who have actually played the board game. What occurs more commonly:
1) A general France v. Coalition war breaks out early with other countries joining the fray or starting there own war.
2) The countries sit back, build up their armies, accumulate minors and not make war until some time has passed.
What has the effect of either of the above occuring had on game play.
Personally I believe that the dynamics of the game would compel #1 to occur more often but in practice is seems that #2 is more common. It seems that people desire to treat the game as an "Empire-building" exercise causes them to not pay as much attention to the VP race. Though I could certainly see how #2 is more viable with the full-scale, 10 year, Grand Campaign game as opposed to the 3 yr 1805-1807 scenario.
Jason
Game Styles
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
Forward_March
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:40 am
The way I've noticed games to unfold is thus:
1st...everybody gathers minors. Portugal causes tensions between Spain and Britain, while the German states are quickly divided up. Turkey goes for the Ottoman Empire.
2nd....All the political wrangling whilst armies build.
3rd...GET FRANCE! On one occasion Prussia allied herself to France, and threw everything off kilter. But usually everyone goes fro France, even if the Russians sit it out.
4th...France cowed...GET THE NEXT BIG Guy!
....or the odd Britain is being a jerk...let's get them!
Usually the first two happen every game I've seen. Nobody is really huge enough to go pell mell with anyone else early in the game(having potential unfriendlies on every flank), so all resort to building a power base.
1st...everybody gathers minors. Portugal causes tensions between Spain and Britain, while the German states are quickly divided up. Turkey goes for the Ottoman Empire.
2nd....All the political wrangling whilst armies build.
3rd...GET FRANCE! On one occasion Prussia allied herself to France, and threw everything off kilter. But usually everyone goes fro France, even if the Russians sit it out.
4th...France cowed...GET THE NEXT BIG Guy!
....or the odd Britain is being a jerk...let's get them!
Usually the first two happen every game I've seen. Nobody is really huge enough to go pell mell with anyone else early in the game(having potential unfriendlies on every flank), so all resort to building a power base.
1) Before the game starts everyone decides who is at war with whom. This then leads to the GREAT minor feeding frenzy deal making, who will roll, who will not roll and do they want them conquered or not:
a. Sweden: GB V. Russia some times Prussia
b. Denmark: Prussia v France, GB or Russia
c. German states: France v Austria v Prussia
d. Portugal: GB v Spain
e. North Africa: GB v Turkey or Spain
f. Italy?
2) Is everyone accommodated?
a. If the Deals go without a hitch, PEACE will breakout on turn 2.
b. Some body makes somebody MAD; they go from phony war to the real deal.
3) Who ever was not willing to make deals starts the Game at war, it saves the DOW. This is true for France and GB. As France I ALWAYS am willing to give deals in Germany. More things to take from anyone who ends up at war with me.
4) Prussia waits for a leader, Russia the ice to thaw and Turkey begs for more cash.
5) People playing Austria think war with France is a good thing (for about two turns).
6) GB and France stair at each other across the Channel.
a. Sweden: GB V. Russia some times Prussia
b. Denmark: Prussia v France, GB or Russia
c. German states: France v Austria v Prussia
d. Portugal: GB v Spain
e. North Africa: GB v Turkey or Spain
f. Italy?
2) Is everyone accommodated?
a. If the Deals go without a hitch, PEACE will breakout on turn 2.
b. Some body makes somebody MAD; they go from phony war to the real deal.
3) Who ever was not willing to make deals starts the Game at war, it saves the DOW. This is true for France and GB. As France I ALWAYS am willing to give deals in Germany. More things to take from anyone who ends up at war with me.
4) Prussia waits for a leader, Russia the ice to thaw and Turkey begs for more cash.
5) People playing Austria think war with France is a good thing (for about two turns).
6) GB and France stair at each other across the Channel.
The most common scenario in my experiance:
- Austria and Prussia start firmly together, surely they can resisit the French onslaught.
- Britain likes them for it and pays for their rebuilding after the defeat. Also, Britain has got another important job and that is recruiting Russia into the coalition (Ivan how would you like a summer house in Stockholm?).
- Russia starts with what should be a quick victorious war against Ottoman.
- Ottoman returns from Africa via Paris, complains about the Russian bastard and requests a couple of bucks for his cavalry.
- Spain receives huge number of diplomats from all over the world, greets them warmly, and agrees to all propositions.
- Austria and Prussia start firmly together, surely they can resisit the French onslaught.
- Britain likes them for it and pays for their rebuilding after the defeat. Also, Britain has got another important job and that is recruiting Russia into the coalition (Ivan how would you like a summer house in Stockholm?).
- Russia starts with what should be a quick victorious war against Ottoman.
- Ottoman returns from Africa via Paris, complains about the Russian bastard and requests a couple of bucks for his cavalry.
- Spain receives huge number of diplomats from all over the world, greets them warmly, and agrees to all propositions.
Don't under estimate Turkey
If Turkey is played well Russia should never have a quick victory over Turkey. Russia may eventually win but it should cost him several factors and a lot of $$$.
An informal peace is a Turkish victory. Turkey's vp goal is so low that it just has to avoid losing wars. The Turk should avoid any major battles unless he has overwhelming numbers. If the Turk army is used well it should take Russia at least 4-6 months to get to Constantinople. The Turk can leave 25 factors in Constantinople and withdraw his army across the straits. With a fleet in the strait the Turk army is safe. If the Turk has done his homework he should have allies to intervene on his side. Either France, Great Britain or Austria.
Early in the game the Russian army is not big enough to threaten Turkey. It might win all the battles but lose the war. I have heard of Turk players starting the game at war with Russia and placing all thier feudal corps on the border. To some this is a scary sight.
I like playing Turkey because it is so different from the other countries. You can rent out those feudal corps to your allies and never risk your elite Janissary factors.
An informal peace is a Turkish victory. Turkey's vp goal is so low that it just has to avoid losing wars. The Turk should avoid any major battles unless he has overwhelming numbers. If the Turk army is used well it should take Russia at least 4-6 months to get to Constantinople. The Turk can leave 25 factors in Constantinople and withdraw his army across the straits. With a fleet in the strait the Turk army is safe. If the Turk has done his homework he should have allies to intervene on his side. Either France, Great Britain or Austria.
Early in the game the Russian army is not big enough to threaten Turkey. It might win all the battles but lose the war. I have heard of Turk players starting the game at war with Russia and placing all thier feudal corps on the border. To some this is a scary sight.
I like playing Turkey because it is so different from the other countries. You can rent out those feudal corps to your allies and never risk your elite Janissary factors.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
Most of the time the morale and the Guard will win the war for Russia, and most important, being a part of anti-French coalition helps. Then you are certain Ottoman will not ally with Britain. I also believe Austro-Ottoman Aliance wouldn't serve anyone's interests.Hoche wrote:If Turkey is played well Russia should never have a quick victory over Turkey. Russia may eventually win but it should cost him several factors and a lot of $$$.
An informal peace is a Turkish victory. Turkey's vp goal is so low that it just has to avoid losing wars. The Turk should avoid any major battles unless he has overwhelming numbers. If the Turk army is used well it should take Russia at least 4-6 months to get to Constantinople. The Turk can leave 25 factors in Constantinople and withdraw his army across the straits. With a fleet in the strait the Turk army is safe. If the Turk has done his homework he should have allies to intervene on his side. Either France, Great Britain or Austria.
Early in the game the Russian army is not big enough to threaten Turkey. It might win all the battles but lose the war. I have heard of Turk players starting the game at war with Russia and placing all thier feudal corps on the border. To some this is a scary sight.
I like playing Turkey because it is so different from the other countries. You can rent out those feudal corps to your allies and never risk your elite Janissary factors.
Otherwise I agree with your points on Ottoman strategy. I'm also a big fan of Turkey in EiA, pure fun to be one.
I was just summarizing the most common ways my EiA group usually started their games, as requested by the thread starter
-
Wellington12347
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:59 pm
Strategies
Thanks for all the great responses thus far guys.
I would agree that a well-played Turkey should never be a pushover for Russia early in the game. An ealry war may not be in Turkey's advantage but Turkey can, without an extreme vent, bleed Russia and make it not worth her while. Russia's victory will at best be pyrrhic and there is always the risk that Russia could loose a key battle and suffer debilitating calvary pursuit losses.
One game the Russian player invaded an uncontrolled Turkey as an "experiment." Naturally, as France, I assumed control. I lost the first battle but b/c he was a predictable chit picker (e.g., as Russia he always picked defend on defense) I won the next two and wiped out his army completely. Admittedly his chit picking helped a lot.
I would argue that Turkey should resist the Russia advance, take Fedual losses, and then move back and cut Russia's supply line to Constantinople. At that point the Russian will have suffered significant losses and a Dec. phase should have intervened (or be close) to replenish the feudals.
Jason
I would agree that a well-played Turkey should never be a pushover for Russia early in the game. An ealry war may not be in Turkey's advantage but Turkey can, without an extreme vent, bleed Russia and make it not worth her while. Russia's victory will at best be pyrrhic and there is always the risk that Russia could loose a key battle and suffer debilitating calvary pursuit losses.
One game the Russian player invaded an uncontrolled Turkey as an "experiment." Naturally, as France, I assumed control. I lost the first battle but b/c he was a predictable chit picker (e.g., as Russia he always picked defend on defense) I won the next two and wiped out his army completely. Admittedly his chit picking helped a lot.
I would argue that Turkey should resist the Russia advance, take Fedual losses, and then move back and cut Russia's supply line to Constantinople. At that point the Russian will have suffered significant losses and a Dec. phase should have intervened (or be close) to replenish the feudals.
Jason
France has to be very careful if the Austria/Prussian alliance forms, 9 times out of 10 Spain will also jump in. Then you face the GB landings with 20-30 I tied down defending the Fleet That leaves around 100I to battle Prussia and Austria, with Spain trying to figure out how many to Guard their fleet and how many to move into France. You end up with 30 Allied Corp Running to France and trying to parcel out troops to step on them. The sick thing is you have won 4 or 5 battles and are max on the chart, if you beat them you get no VP. You run out of Infantry and have to sue for PEACE!
-
Forward_March
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:40 am
I think the Turks are overrated. As long as you didn't end up with the chit combination of escalated assault & Escalated counterassault, the Turks lose. Especially their feudal troops.
Granted, Russia is too weak at the outset to do much against them. But, given some time, Ivan can clear the Balkans of them. (bye, bye feudal toops) If the Austrians want to look at some territory, too they can join in the party...if they can afford it.
O course, if Russia does start early, then the dream of a Turkish Ottoman Empire falls to dust.
Granted, Russia is too weak at the outset to do much against them. But, given some time, Ivan can clear the Balkans of them. (bye, bye feudal toops) If the Austrians want to look at some territory, too they can join in the party...if they can afford it.
O course, if Russia does start early, then the dream of a Turkish Ottoman Empire falls to dust.
-
Tim Grimmett
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:25 am
Game Styles
I've learned to EIA played at two levels: one has to play against the board and the second is to play against the players. The interaction between the two dynamics is what makes the game great but also easy for a newby to miscalculate.
Some players are afraid to fight. That is bad. It is a WAR GAME.
I have seen 60 point stacks run from 30 point french generals. All because the
odds said they could not win. The game ISNT about winning, its about fighting.
The strongest alliance I have seen is the French, Russian axis. They both
work over Europe good and Russia becomes dominant. They then gang up
on England.
It all depends on your perception of the ability of your allys to hold off the French. If you think he will collapse, he will. No one can hold against France alone. Not even Russia.
The Key point here is Prussia/Austria. If the French can break up the
peace/war cycle so that they never have to face BOTH countries at the same
time, the game will be over.
I have seen 60 point stacks run from 30 point french generals. All because the
odds said they could not win. The game ISNT about winning, its about fighting.
The strongest alliance I have seen is the French, Russian axis. They both
work over Europe good and Russia becomes dominant. They then gang up
on England.
It all depends on your perception of the ability of your allys to hold off the French. If you think he will collapse, he will. No one can hold against France alone. Not even Russia.
The Key point here is Prussia/Austria. If the French can break up the
peace/war cycle so that they never have to face BOTH countries at the same
time, the game will be over.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
-
Tim Grimmett
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:25 am
EIA makes a player quickly decide what fights are worth fighting. When faced with a bad situation, one can only make it worse, in PP terms, by uselessly fighting on. Fighting usually means PP (hence winning) for France; this is not always the case for one of the other countries. Of course France makes the decision to fight easier if it insists on "maximalist" positions (unconditional surrenders).
Turkey is one of the hardest Empires to take to war. You only need to win one battle with all that cal very. The key is mixing assaults with outflank.
I have seen the Turk lose 3 battles and then on the Fourth the Russian army pulled defend and then that outflank hits the second round... 50 Feudal cav on the 5 table lets see I rolled a 3 that’s 45% of 50 or 23 PURSUIT losses. Gosh you ONLY have 10 cav and 1 Cossack and 12 militia and 24 I and 3 Guarde and I hope General Kutusov enjoys Turkish TEA? I am sorry, I was busy picking your 6 best Corp off the table... Oh "terms"
I have seen the Turk lose 3 battles and then on the Fourth the Russian army pulled defend and then that outflank hits the second round... 50 Feudal cav on the 5 table lets see I rolled a 3 that’s 45% of 50 or 23 PURSUIT losses. Gosh you ONLY have 10 cav and 1 Cossack and 12 militia and 24 I and 3 Guarde and I hope General Kutusov enjoys Turkish TEA? I am sorry, I was busy picking your 6 best Corp off the table... Oh "terms"
strange, i dont do that myself, when i play turkey, if i am attacking, then do i use one of these chits assault, enchlon (or how that is spelled) and probe. It depends really on what sort of enemy you fight.
as defender then do i prefer Counter attack, Cordon at times and defend. Could use outflank at times, but would never do it with a leader with 1, need to have 2 minimum and only if its seems best chance to win, like fighting big army or morale.
as defender then do i prefer Counter attack, Cordon at times and defend. Could use outflank at times, but would never do it with a leader with 1, need to have 2 minimum and only if its seems best chance to win, like fighting big army or morale.
Speaking of outflanking
One time I was playing 1792 as Prussia. I was doing well so GB and Russia decide to knock me down a few notches. Russia sent a huge army into Pr controlled Poland and GB and Ru landed an army at Lubeck.
I decided to attack the smaller Anglo-Russo army at Lubeck. The only commander I had was Brunswick 2.1.3. Well they had a Russian leader so they chose defend. Guessing they would do that I chose outflank hoping to get the +1 to my strategic rating and make the outflank at the end of the 1st round 50/50. Well it worked and I spanked them and got a good pursuit. I killed all the brits and less than 10 Russians were left.
GB went informal so I wouldn't take Holland from him. Then Ru went informal after taking Lithuania. I ended up with Hanover and Hesse from GB. No one surrendered to me but for 1792 Prussia to fight off Ru and GB alone and still gain territory is really good. And I owe it all to a predictable Russian and the outflank.
I decided to attack the smaller Anglo-Russo army at Lubeck. The only commander I had was Brunswick 2.1.3. Well they had a Russian leader so they chose defend. Guessing they would do that I chose outflank hoping to get the +1 to my strategic rating and make the outflank at the end of the 1st round 50/50. Well it worked and I spanked them and got a good pursuit. I killed all the brits and less than 10 Russians were left.
GB went informal so I wouldn't take Holland from him. Then Ru went informal after taking Lithuania. I ended up with Hanover and Hesse from GB. No one surrendered to me but for 1792 Prussia to fight off Ru and GB alone and still gain territory is really good. And I owe it all to a predictable Russian and the outflank.
It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke
Not sure if this is off topic or not:
How many playing the 1805 scenario normally send Davout and Ney into
Hesse(et al) while Nappy heads for Wein?
How many playing the 1805 scenario normally send Davout and Ney into
Hesse(et al) while Nappy heads for Wein?
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
-
Wellington12347
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:59 pm
Strategy
How many troops are assigned to Davout and Ney in this situation?
Wellington12347 wrote:How many troops are assigned to Davout and Ney in this situation?
Well in this case the Maxx to Davout would be 40 but that would also be
excessive.
Say 20 to Davout and 15 to Ney with attendant Cav.
The purpose is to secure the English possessions.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Hesse and I believe Baden? were possessions of the English crown.Wellington12347 wrote:English Possessions?
It is possible that I have the wrong provinces in mind of course.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic